/m/hof

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

It seems like for this project a straight up WAR list would get you 80% there or so, and the remaining 20% can be quibbled with, with no real right or wrong answers.

Straight WAR - with the ~20% caveats for the degree of precision about defense, post season, War (the kind where people die, not just Murray Chass stroking out) credit, "character", etc. - works well for the pure career voter. But for peak voters, I'd think something like Wins Above 2x Average and for extended prime, something like Wins Above Average. Personally, I tend to blend them - in an imprecise and ad hoc fashion - believing that the Hall should have both the Don Suttons and the Sandy Koufaxes.

I have a hard time seeing Lou Whitaker as a bigger travesty than Alan Trammell... maybe I'm just being too peak and maybe I'm penalizing Whitaker for spending the second half of his career as a platoon player, but that just feels wrong to me.

The ballot allows you to vote for Negro League and 19th century candidates as well. From the Negro Leagues, Alejandro Oms and Quincy Trouppe were elected to the Hall of Merit while Dick Redding continues to get strong support. There's also Buck O'Neil, who is more renowned as an ambassador of the game than as a player but his overall career could be worthy of the Hall of Fame.

I have a hard time seeing Lou Whitaker as a bigger travesty than Alan Trammell... maybe I'm just being too peak and maybe I'm penalizing Whitaker for spending the second half of his career as a platoon player, but that just feels wrong to me.

I'm a pro-Whitaker for the hof guy, but yes Trammell is the bigger travesty.

I still argue that his "platooning" is overstated by people, he still saw plenty of plate appearances against the same handed pitchers even after he became a "platooner".

Based on popular perception I'd say the average fan probably agrees with WAR's defensive penalties there, except for probably Biggio, Damon, Butler, and Wynn? Butler and Wynn were before my time, so I could be way off as to how they were perceived.

Piazza, Manny, Giambi, and Allen all have poor defence as a solid part of their identity. Williams and Sheffield to a lesser extent.

Oh yeah, missed Jeter at the top there. Certainly a disconnect between the numbers and popular perception there, though that has been covered to death.

Just thinking aloud here, but isn't platooning pretty analagous to DHing or closing? Its putting players in situations that hide their flaws and allow them to be great. Even if Lou made his living platooned (which I agree with #13, that is overstated), is it not that different from Bruce Sutter closing or Edgar Martinez DHing?

Based on popular perception I'd say the average fan probably agrees with WAR's defensive penalties there, except for probably Biggio, Damon, Butler, and Wynn? Butler and Wynn were before my time, so I could be way off as to how they were perceived.

The biggest issue is the magnitude of the defensive factor. Ramirez, Sheffield, Giambi, Cabrera, Kent, Butler, McGriff, Giles... these players get murdered by dWAR.

Conversely, Beltre and Andruw, two popular Hall candidates here, get helped to a large degree. Andruw in particular is nothing without the defense rating.

Sammy Sosa's plus defensive rating did surprise me. I understood from the general conversation here that people had little regard for his defense.

I don't think people realize when looking at a straight WAR list just how much the defensive rating is playing in to the results.

I think they do. Or at least, people at this website do. When someone argues Rolen or Beltre for the Hall, they'll refer to the fact that they are historically great defenders pretty much every time. Guys like Ichiro, Keith Hernandez, Boyer, Bell, Nettles, Lofton...defence plays a huge role in any argument for these players (whether you use WAR or hate it). I mean, defence (and positional adjustment) is kind of the point of WAR for me. If I didn't want a significant inclusion of defensive value I'd just use PA and OPS+ or runs created or something.

Sammy Sosa's plus defensive rating did surprise me. I understood from the general conversation here that people had little regard for his defense.

Yeah Sosa is an odd one. By WAR he accumulated almost all of his defensive value before 1998, when he was a player almost no one thinks of when they think of Sosa. A point unrelated to Sosa, I would guess defensive value is hurt more than anything else by a player having a prolonged decline phase. Obviously your OPS declines if you stick around until you're 40, but I would think the defensive runs above average would be hurt even more. A solidly above average defender can turn into a firmly below average one by sticking around in his mid-30s...seems like there is a greater swing between peak and decline than in hitting.

The biggest issue is the magnitude of the defensive factor. Ramirez, Sheffield, Giambi, Cabrera, Kent, Butler, McGriff, Giles... these players get murdered by dWAR.

This is my biggest problem with WAR. I think the defensive metrics in general do a pretty good job of identifying who is/is not a good defender but I'm not convinced they've got the order of magnitude right yet.

I was surprised to see this statement coming from you, someone who seriously penalizes Pedro for durability.

I penalize players for durability during their prime years. A starting pitcher missing 3+ starts(10%) during his best years is a huge drain on the team. I still have Pedro as a hofer, just not as high as some people. I still think of Walker, Larkin and others as hofers, and about the only person who goes from the in to the out line because of durability, is Dick Allen and that is partially because it's a product of his own doing.

Add in that post 33 age season, few players play everyday. Stan Musial never played 140 games after his age 35 season(yes 154 game season, still missing roughly 20 games a year) Hornsby never broke 100 games played after his age 33 season. In Sandbergs last five seasons(33-37, he broke 135 once..same could be said about Joe Morgan.

Whitaker was at least available if needed, but wasn't always playing, that is not the same issue as durability problems.

The WAR and oWAR lists are very different. The players who appear high on both lists nobody will have a problem with, absent the steroids silliness that has ruined the Hall; it's the fringe players that are the problematic ones, and it's where the real HOF debate lies.

I have a hard time seeing Lou Whitaker as a bigger travesty than Alan Trammell... maybe I'm just being too peak and maybe I'm penalizing Whitaker for spending the second half of his career as a platoon player, but that just feels wrong to me.

The travesty is Whitaker falling off the ballot after one year, while we get year after year of bullshit articles about Jack Morris, winningest pitcher of the 1980's...but yes, Trammell is the better player, both he and Whitaker deserve to be in the HoF.

Sammy sosa's defensive prowess ties directly to his hitting prowess. when he was young Sammy could have played a passable centerfield and up until 1997 or so he was an above average right fielder who could have been considered very good if not for the scattershot throws a la vlad.

after he began hitting oodles of homers his range decreased, he still made sh8tty throws and at times he looked like a buffoon as he had lost some of his flexibility/agility.

by the time Sammy was 31 or so he was a poor outfielder. it was very distressing to see

The WAR and oWAR lists are very different. The players who appear high on both lists nobody will have a problem with, absent the steroids silliness that has ruined the Hall; it's the fringe players that are the problematic ones, and it's where the real HOF debate lies.

I think you're right, the WAR lists do a good job of pointing out where the debates lie.

Were Beltre and Rolen good enough defenders to warrant inclusion? (I suspect yes)
Were Manny and Sheffield poor enough defenders to warrant exclusion? (I'd guess Manny no, Sheffield...I really have no idea)
Was Andruw Jones such a phenomenal defender he deserves to be in? (I'm fairly sure no)

Was Keith Hernandez so transcendent at first that he deserves to be in? (Head says no, but my heart says yes!)

Is Kenny Lofton already off the ballot? I've been mulling it over lately and thought he'd be a fine personal favourite for me to annoy people by pushing all the time.

Yeah - I'm not at all belittling Whitaker in the Trammell comparison.... and actually - I probably haven't really looked at Alan and Lou side by side since... geez... having both their baseball cards in hand back in the 80s?

Comparing them just now on BB-REF -- I think that I was actually wrong about even thinking Trammell was a bigger travesty. He might be for peak voters -- though spread out, Trammell just had a few superior 'great' seasons.... but I have to admit - I'm shocked to find that 1)Whitaker actually has a higher career OPS+ (117 vs 110) than Trammell, 2) Beats Trammell in virtually every counting stat that matters (2369 hits vs 2365, 244 HRs vs 184, 1197 BBs vs 850), 3)Despite only having less a season's more PAs than Trammell. Trammell's only real edge is in dWAR (at least bbrefs dWAR).

Literally until taking a closer look at them just now -- I thought Whitaker was a travesty and should be in the HoF -- but thought the idea that Trammell isn't yet/likely won't be was a bigger travesty.

In the past hour - I have completely, utterly changed my mind.... The WAR list that shows Whitaker over Trammell does make sense if you spend a half hour with the numbers.

In fact, given that Whitaker's heyday was during my sweet spot as a baseball fan - I'm actually embarrassed to realize that I didn't think more of him (In my defense, I was an NL guy... and once upon a time, if you were an NL guy, you really didn't see much of the "other league" back then).

I have a new answer to the question "Who do you think is the most underrated player n baseball history?"

I think I will also blame my brother.... I was a Cubs fan, he was a Tigers fan growing up. We'd argue all offseason about which team was better and we'd eventually go position by position.... Parrish vs Davis.... Evans vs Cey.... As I recall, he'd give up WAAAAYYYY to easily at 2B - so I think that's the seedling of my underrating of Whitaker. My brother's complete failure to muster any sort of defense of Whitaker's honor against Sandberg. As I recall, not even so much as a "Well, it's close..." or even a "But Whitaker is still pretty good". He would just skip past 2B or acknowledge Sandberg as the unquestionably superior player without so much as batting an eye.

The biggest issue is the magnitude of the defensive factor. Ramirez, Sheffield, Giambi, Cabrera, Kent, Butler, McGriff, Giles... these players get murdered by dWAR.

I think you need to separate someone like McGriff from someone like Sheffield when you make a statement like this. dWAR includes both the positional adjustment and the actual quality of a player's fielding at his position. McGriff has -18.1 dWAR but about 15 of that is the normal positional adjustment from playing 1B/DH. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement around the size of that adjustment in the SABR community. The difference between his oWAR and his WAR (what you should really be looking at) is only 3 wins, which is not a lot over a 2500-game career.

To say that McGriff (or Kent or Giles) are getting murdered by dWAR is hyperbole -- it affects your WAR rankings a lot because there are a lot of non-HOFers bunched up around 50-60 WAR (not surprisingly since most guys over that level are probably in already), but we're talking 3-4 wins over the course of their careers. That is not what is keeping them out of the Hall and for those three, at least, it seems to conform with popular perception of their defense.

Sheffield, on the other hand, has -28.6 dWAR, and about 20 of that is related to the quality of his fielding. Manny and Giambi also have relatively large negative Rfield numbers. Cabrera will likely rack up a huge negative Rfield by the time he is done. But similar to the guys above, dWAR is not what's keeping them out of the Hall. Brett Butler was one-and-done with the BBWAA several years before dWAR existed. Cabrera will likely get voted in regardless.

I think you need to separate someone like McGriff from someone like Sheffield when you make a statement like this. dWAR includes both the positional adjustment and the actual quality of a player's fielding at his position. McGriff has -18.1 dWAR but about 15 of that is the normal positional adjustment from playing 1B/DH. I don't think there's a lot of disagreement around the size of that adjustment in the SABR community. The difference between his oWAR and his WAR (what you should really be looking at) is only 3 wins, which is not a lot over a 2500-game career.

No, because my point is explicitly to point out the wide dichotomy in the WAR and oWAR lists, to demonstrate how citing raw WAR lists or ranking and drawing too much from them is hugely problematic.

Harvey, I'd like to hear more about what makes Bando a personal favorite of yours. I see him as somewhat close to HOF worthy but a little short. Though it was before my time the underrated Oakland dynasty is my all time favorite team. I'd like to hear yours and others thoughts on Bando.

I can get to 40 if I include Rose and Jackson... I'm very much a big hall guy - I make no apologies or bones about that - but I would vote for the top 25 without having to give it much thought and at least half the next 25 without needing a whole lot of prodding or convincing... probably close to 2/3.

I see myself being perhaps a wee bit more discriminating on the pitcher list.

All told, I see easily 60 guys I could support for the Hall.... and probably another 15 to 20 that I would likely exclude only because of ballot space... but like I siad.... I'm very much a big hall guy.

--he didn't 'look' like a any type of defensive third baseman but he was better than average
--he was built like a hockey player'
--he was a tough guy who would take on anybody
--he could cuss with the best of them
--he was a natural leader on a ballfield
--it seemed the way at the time and later validated by the stats, sal was the same player no matter how you sliced things (home/away, first half/second half, by month, rightie/leftie)
--he was a rock of the first good brewer team in 1978 before he drove off a cliff

He sure was, and it always amazed me that he never became a field manager (went straight to the front office instead). Bando was named team captain of the A's practically the moment he arrived from the minor leagues, and was commonly referred to as "Captain Sal."

I have a hard time seeing Lou Whitaker as a bigger travesty than Alan Trammell... maybe I'm just being too peak and maybe I'm penalizing Whitaker for spending the second half of his career as a platoon player, but that just feels wrong to me.

I think that has a lot to do with the fact that Ozzie, who played in the same era, same position, went right in. Trammell was such a superior hitter without giving up too much defensively that it does seem like a travesty.
Although Whitaker being one and done might be an even bigger injustice.

62 now... I missed Clemens (it's funny how I can still be either illogical or logical enough to go down a list and think "yeah, Roger Clemens has gotta be in the Hall of Fame")... hopefully I didn't forget more, but I probably did.

So yeah, that'd be a reasonable starting point, although I think you need to throw in Schilling, Sosa and Lofton, whom the HOM hasn't really had the chance to "fully consider" yet.¹

Since obviously Maddux, Thomas, Glavine, Mussina and Kent will be joining the HOM ballot as well, it's frightening to think about what that implies: Even if all the "no-brainer if not for PED" players had sailed right into the HOF, there could still be eight very qualified guys on this ballot!

¹ Although of course I know the HOM never declares anyone "fully considered."

Not only is it an injustice, I find it kind of mystifying. I mean, he retired when I was 15, but I remember there being this general feeling around baseball that Whitaker was a shoo-in. And then . . . pffft. How do you go from a no-doubter to one-and-done in five years?

it's how his career wound down and the nature of the tigers at the end of his career.

he was platoon player the last 5-6 years. the tigers finished over .500 a few times but mostly were regarded as a glorified softball team. lou had told managers not to pick him for the all star team so he wasn't getting any degree of national attention. lou certainly wasn't working the press by any means.

whitaker just faded into the background and when the vote took place to the writers whitaker had not been retired 5 years, it had been 10-12. lou had disappeared himself from their memories

Whitaker was also a bit of an airhead who didn't fit into the writers neat little boxes. To some, it appeared that he coasted by with litle effort or attention and was a 'what could have been.' This contrasted with his teamates like Gibson, Morris, and Parrish who seemed to the general fans and writers to have squeezed every last ounce out of their talents. Personally, I reject this -- even if true, what matters is result, not effort -- but these perceptions need to be accounted for in how he was treated by the voters.

Er, no. In Lou's last 6 seasons (1990-95), he had 552, 572, 544, 476, 372 and 285 PA and 130, 135, 119, 110, 83 and 63 games played at 2B. He was a "platoon player" for only those last two seasons (maybe three, but it's a stretch; even so, he managed 8.1 WAR from 1993-95).

the tigers finished over .500 a few times but mostly were regarded as a glorified softball team.

I don't even know what the hell this means. (Did they bring back the Detroit Caesars or something?)

lou had told managers not to pick him for the all star team so he wasn't getting any degree of national attention.

I've never heard of this, and it sounds like BS to me. He did play in five ASGs a row from 1983-87.

I don't even know what the hell this means. (Did they bring back the Detroit Caesars or something?)

I know what he means. Fielder, Deer, Tettleton, Incaviglia - a team loaded with lumbering sluggers who mostly couldn't field worth a damn. Walks, homers, and lots and lots of strikeouts, and an entire staff of innings eaters. Every game seemed to be a 6-5 win for someone. Honestly, it was part of why I liked watching them, as it was almost guaranteed that you would see a shot into the upper deck, but it was often talked about more as beer league than major league.

I'd be content with a Hall of Fame that included everyone on that first WAR list, the one that included not-yet eligibles. It would have the virtue of consistency that's sorely lacking in the real one. As for this one:

Top 50 players by WAR that qualify for this survey (5 years retired, not in HOF)

Er, no. In Lou's last 6 seasons (1990-95), he had 552, 572, 544, 476, 372 and 285 PA and 130, 135, 119, 110, 83 and 63 games played at 2B. He was a "platoon player" for only those last two seasons (maybe three, but it's a stretch; even so, he managed 8.1 WAR from 1993-95).

Well, yes. After 1989, Whitaker never started 120 games at 2B; Tony Phillips played 2B when a lefty started. As a leadoff man in the 1980's he was regularly over 600 PA. His platoon splits were huge. And he wasn't really into conditioning, so resting him against lefties helped him last through the season.

Just thinking aloud here, but isn't platooning pretty analagous to DHing or closing? Its putting players in situations that hide their flaws and allow them to be great.

This. Those good WAR scores Lou posted in the 1990's are entirely due to platooning.

I still think he belongs in the Hall, but Sparky was good at using players in ways they could succeed, and not asking them to do things they couldn't.

In reverse Lou explained the ASG item in several interviews. He was a worthy candidate several times but had told folks he was not interested any longer

The tigers had a slew of guys who walked, hit homers and not much BA. The softball line is not original. It was used regularly to describe a team that slugged its way to wins. Gripes I think even bill James used this comparison

As for platoon Lou sat against lefties more frequently as a full time player would have 650 plate appearances in a season

I still think he belongs in the Hall, but Sparky was good at using players in ways they could succeed, and not asking them to do things they couldn't.

...except for Game 4 of the '87 ALCS when he put Darrell Evans at 3B, a position he hadn't played regularly since coming to Detroit :-p.

Those good WAR scores Lou posted in the 1990's are entirely due to platooning

How significantly do you think it would have affected his WAR if he had regularly played against lefties? I assume he'd probably be close to or above replacement level but I could his WAA taking somewhat of a hit..